Re: Prefer Mercurial instead of git

[Rüdiger Sonderfeld]

On Friday 03 January 2014 16:52:32 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> I know a majority opinion lies with git due to various cultural
> factors. I would, however, want to make a case for Mercurial being a
> better choice for a GNU package.

The Emacs community is largely using git.  I just checked which methods are 
used for `el-get' packages.  By far the largest are git based (git, github) 
with more than 61%.  The next largest is http (http, http-tar) with ~18%.  
Mercurial is used for less than 2% of the packages.

Many major Emacs packages already use git: Org, Gnus, AUCTeX, ESS, GNU ELPA, 
...

As you said the main arguments are social and not technical.  And the 
community is the major social asset of any free software project.  Therefore 
it seems like a bad idea to switch to anything but git.  I think Stefan 
already made it clear that it's either git or bzr.

Regards
Rüdiger

Raw data from el-get (2c93601b3c907)

((fossil . 1)
 (go . 6)
 (no-op . 2)
 (cvs . 4)
 (git-svn . 2)
 (builtin . 11)
 (ftp . 5)
 (emacsmirror . 9)
 (bzr . 10)
 ("github" . 2)
 (svn . 11)
 (hg . 17)
 (elpa . 24)
 (http . 145)
 (emacswiki . 89)
 (git . 55)
 (http-tar . 20)
 (github . 518))

I didn't count git-svn, emacsmirror for git.  And didn't check the vcs used by 
packages managed through elpa, go, or other methods.  So 62% is a rather low 
estimate.